Category: bible teaching

Let’s Make It Simple: The Christmas Angels & Bible Translations

· Leave a comment ·

The key question that must be resolved concerning translations is what “Greek Text” or manuscripts do you rely upon for the translation (into the English language, in our situation).

#1 – Do you rely on the TR (Textus Receptus / the Majority Text)

or

#2 – Do you rely on the CT (Critical Text / the Sinaiticus – Vaticanus) manuscripts?

The Critical Text is called the “Sinaiticus – Vaticanus” because the name indicates locations.  One was found in the Sinai (in 1844), and the other was discovered in the library of the Vatican.

In 1881, two prominent scholars, Westcott and Hort, declared and dismissed the Textus Receptus as inferior and created a new Greek text based on the Critical Text.

If you do not rely on the Textus Receptus, then you must explain how God allowed this set of Greek manuscripts to be the basis of all New Testament translations for almost two thousand years (until 1881 and after).

So until 1881, God left the Greek manuscripts that Westcott and Hort decided were superior, hidden in the Sinai and tucked away in the Vatican?

For 1881 years, Bible scholars, church fathers, pastors, and God’s people relied upon the TR, which was an inferior set of manuscripts?

Joe Shakour provides another prime example of what happens when you abandon the TR / Majority Text and use a translation that is dependent on the Critical Text.

The Path To Pastoral Corruption

· Leave a comment ·

The ministry continues to be littered with examples of pastoral failure — moral, criminal, ethical, and personal.  What are the dynamics that are playing out that are producing this?

When people say that so-in-so is “living in a bubble,” or they are working in an “echo chamber,”  They are referring to an isolation that occurs between the average and ordinary person in their world and those in positions of leadership.  They are referring to an isolation that repeatedly occurs when leaders and pastors no longer live with an understanding of where the people are.  They are living their lives in and among those who occupy the same “offices” and “offices” they occupy.

There is a self-governance and individualism that walks alongside leaders who believe that they are leaders because they are at least slightly, if not significantly, superior to those they are leading.  And while they may have some skill sets that have propelled them into leadership, they begin to believe their own press clippings.

In the ministry, these press clippings come from those who sit in the pews.  God’s people compliment and share their appreciation of the pastoral staff.  No matter how poor a sermon is, there will always be someone who offers words of appreciation to the pastor or other members.

There is an environment that surrounds a ministry and the local church. God’s people attend the services and honor their leaders because they want to support their pastoral leaders.  No one wants to be critical.  All want to believe the best of their pastoral staff.  A great deal of grace and kindness is extended when mistakes are made.  Forgiveness is quickly and easily extended to church leaders.  It is all part of the biblical environment that we all believe in and seek to emulate.

However, leaders are also complicit in promoting that environment. That world of self-governance allows little to no room for any criticism — legitimate or illegitimate. Criticism is knocked down by such biblical concepts as “back-biting,” “gossip,” “disrupting the unity of the church,” etc. Church by-laws and constitutions are more than a church’s statement of faith and some general structure on its operation.  The church constitution becomes a protective handbook. and self-serving changes are made by the leaders.

The church constitution can be a means of protecting the pastoral staff from criticism as well as dismissal.  Most pastors never face dismissal.  As is generally known, pastors spend about 3-5 years at a local church before THEY decide to leave. While a pastor may be reading the tea leaves and decide it is time to move on to another ministry, they are rarely fired outside of moral, criminal, or ethical issues.  You can throw in a few cases where pastors decide to move on because of a terrible decision or event that will follow them for years to come.

Now, add to all this the genuine reality that the church by-laws and constitution may delegate more power and self-governance to the Sr./Lead Pastor. He may be given the authority to recommend the removal of staff or pastors. Even though the church voted to hire, the Lead Pastor can, for all practical purposes, be dismissed.  If that staff is not dismissed, he may suggest to the staff member or pastor that it is time for them to leave.

Some Lead Pastors even have the sole power to dismiss another member of the pastoral staff without congregational or board approval! Some Lead Pastors will even have the church constitution rewritten to give them this power and more!  That is not a hypothetical but a reality that could easily be demonstrated if needed.

All of this feeds into the self-governance or autonomy that leaders and/or pastors experience, and that self-governance becomes the means of their ineffectiveness or, worse, their downfall.  They do not have anyone who can talk to them.

Those on the payroll have an interest in currying the leader’s favor. That favor means opportunity, promotions, salary increases, as well as job satisfaction. You compliment the Sr./Lead pastor, and he will support your employment and standing. Which feeds into the danger even more!

The members are at work all week, and they have little idea of what takes place in ministry.  They believe that the Lead Pastor is taking care of everything! In fact, they are counting on him to hold the staff accountable. Those in the “pew” also believe that the staff’s support of the leader is born out of agreement or approval.  Those closest are satisfied and supportive, and therefore, all must be well. The dynamic of self-governance is playing out.

√ When you as a leader do not have people in and around you who can honestly and candidly talk to you.

√ When you do not encourage those around you to speak up.

√ When you do not have people who have no vested interest and/or drive to curry your favor.

√ When you do not give people who don’t work for you a place at the table.

. . . . ineffectiveness and/or worse damage will ultimately result.

While there are other mitigating factors that can be in play (and there are), self-governance is a killer.  Anyone who has taken the time to read the accounts of so many Lead Pastors and ministries that bear out this assessment knows how truly dangerous and damaging self-governance / autonomy is.

Another by-product of “autonomy” is unchecked ineffectiveness. One might think that “ineffectiveness” is far less a concern compared to  ethical/moral failure.  “Ineffectiveness” when leading a local church or ministry is only less of a concern because it leaves the leader’s reputation untouched.  While men like RaviZ, the SBC, Dave Ramsey, James MacDonald, Matt Chandler, et al. have been severely damaged personally, their effectiveness was diminished long before it all came apart.  Others around them lack the courage to graciously speak up about other smaller practical concerns.  Those smaller concerns were not moral or ethical, but revolved around the practical.  Things said or left unsaid. Things done and undone.  They all ate away at the effectiveness of the ministry as a whole.  Visit were not made.  Comments from the pulpit were unchecked.  Programs were less effective than they could have or should have been because of no one wanted to say anything to damage their relationships.

When leaders and pastors have no one who can speak truth into their lives, the ministry or church loses its effectiveness.  When staff members, fellow pastors, church officials, or members are compromised by their need for employment or their desire to find favor, and they say little to nothing because of those and other factors, then what could have made a difference, and even a significant difference, is lost.

The answer to “self-governance” is accountability.  While that word is in the mouth of most “autonomous” leaders, it is knowingly compromised.”Accountability” is for others.  We are slightly or significantly superior to others.

There are ministry leaders and pastors who are not fit to lead because they cannot even lead themselves.  They make self-serving decisions and know that they will not be checked on because those who work in the “King’s Court” will support them, or they will find themselves on the way out of employment or a church office.

They do not have people who will tell them what they need to hear but what they want to hear! The voices that need to be heard are ignored, muffled, or dismissed.  That damages and kills ministries, if not ultimately the leader himself!

Oh, I know that right now, in many, or even most cases, there is no need to be concerned. Nevertheless, not one of the above examples (along with many others) thought they were in danger of making a terrible decision, as others around them remained silent (and complicit).  But the “Hemingway law of motion” is clearly at work, given enough time, with far too many church leaders . . . .

“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” 1

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

  1. Hemingway makes the point that things happen slowly, and then the collapse takes place suddenly. That “Hemingway Law Of Motion”may also explain what happens with some ministries and local churches.

After a series of actions and decisions, over a long period of time, suddenly an action or decision is made that precipitates a sudden collapse that “no one” saw coming. The avalanche was building over the months and days of winter, and finally, a snowflake landed on the accumulation, and the vast movement of snow was triggered.

That might describe what takes place in ministries and local churches. It is not this-or-that event or decision, but the building of events and decisions that finally result in a sudden avalanche or collapse.

What About Andy Stanley’s Arguments

· 4 Comments ·

While I am only one voice among many, and a very small voice at that, I would like to provide some analysis that I have yet to see provided by the many larger voices that have critiqued Andy Stanely’s recent message.

Let me begin with some positive comments that may be lost in the noise. 

#1 – There is a need for programs that help parents through the minefield that surrounds families with children who are sexually confused, homosexual, bisexual, etc. Apparently, Andy Stanley recognized that need long before many others, maybe even up to this point in time. He has been on a long road to provide that, and that is not only worth noting but commending.

The church is too often late to address such needs. Stanley’s parents’ conference may be just the catalyst needed to provide such programs in local churches. “Knowing that you are not alone” in dealing with this as a family and as parents is indeed a needed breath of fresh air! Let’s pray to that end!  

Stanley is so very accurate when he states that if you as a parent are facing such an issue in your family, you will be the first one to find help as Christian parents — helping parents understand what is going on in the minds of gay kids.

#2 – Andy Stanley has always been driven by an evangelistic zeal to reach people with the Gospel. This is merely one more example. What has made Stanley’s ministry different is exactly as he states when commenting on Al Mohler’s response. Stanely and Mohler are in two different camps when it comes to reaching out with the Gospel. Not only is Stanley methodologically different, but seemingly passionately divergent from many local church pastors.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

The most repeated criticisms are about the use of gay speakers (gay “Christian” speakers) and the metaphor of “circles and lines.” 

√ Having gay “Christian” speakers is a real concern. To listen to gay individuals who claim to be Christians has strong influential implications, especially for those who are personally driven to want that to be true.

√ Stanley also argues that he draws circles and others draw lines. Stanley employs the “false dichotomy/dilemma” argument when he argues that he draws circles, not lines. as if it must be one or the other. As most point out, both circles and lines are needed, and Jesus drew both — “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Now for some assessments that seem to be missing in many critiques.

#1 – “Same-sex Attracted”: There is a subtle argument being made by the adoption and use of these words. Such terminology slices between action and desire. Apparently, “action” and “attraction” are defined as “sinful” versus “sinless” (or, at best, far far less serious). 

In fact, that very argument is made when Stanley repeatedly makes it clear that 85% of those who are same-sex attracted have not acted on their attraction. . . . Most “rarely, rarely” engage in sexual behavior.

The use or the adoption of such terminology may be a subtle way of redefining the sin of homosexuality. I realize that attraction is not action. I also realize that hatred is not murder and that viewing pornography is not adultery. 

I also realize that actions are more sinful than feelings. Hating someone is far different than actually murdering someone, and the social, psychological, and legal implications are far different. There are degrees of sinfulness and its impact on lives.

I also realize that there is a clear, known path that exists between any of these bifurcations. 

While there may be many who have felt the same-sex attraction (or illegitimate opposite-sex attraction), such sinful attractions, left unaddressed, becomes a path that leads to a terrible place — Proverbs 4 and 5 . . . .  

Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go;

Keep her, for she is your life.

Do not enter the path of the wicked,

And do not walk in the way of evil.

Avoid it, do not travel on it;

Turn away from it and pass on.

Who would talk about “opposite-sex attraction like “same-sex attraction?” As long as we don’t act on “lust,” we need not address it as biblically sinful and destructive to one’s life, marriage, and family.

#2 – “God Did Not Answer”: One of Stanley’s recurring comments revolves around the repeated prayers of those who were “same-sex attracted. 

“They don’t embrace it. They resist it. . . . Something is deeply wrong, even though I haven’t done anything wrong. . . . They find themselves in a battle, not against a behavior, but against a defining attraction that they did not choose, but somehow has chosen them, And they pray, and they pray, and they pray.” 

It was “not something they chose . . . .somehow it has chosen them, and they pray. Take it away. They beg God to take it away. . . . . they asked God to change them, and God did not answer their prayer.”. . . .They are literally afraid that they are going to Hell. . . . not because of anything they have done but because of who they are

Let me mention that such an argument gives a sense of relief and even an excuse. Rather than fighting the battle and/or accepting personal accountability, maybe I need to accept what is happening. 

Imagine making the same argument about marital failure, divorce, recreational drugs, sexual promiscuity, children-sex-attraction, unseemly grief of the loss of a loved one, unremitting anxiety, etc. — “It was not something they chose . . . .somehow it has chosen them, and they pray. Take it away. They beg God to take it away. . . . . they asked God to change them, and God did not answer their prayer.”

Stanley’s argument also clearly implies that God is responsible. God did not answer their prayers, and their prayers were good, right, just, appropriate, and sincere! Why didn’t God deliver them from such feelings and a dire personal impasse?

How about those seeking and praying for help in their marriages, finances, fears of loneliness, singleness, and childlessness? What would we say to those who are facing unrelenting disease, life-threatening sickness, a battle with alcohol/drugs, the loss of a husband, a mother, a father, a child(ren), etc.? What should be the response in these situations? What would we say to these individuals when their prayers are not answered?  

#3 — “Our Decision Is The Response” : Andy Stanley states that once two people decide to enter into a same-sex relationship and/or to marry, that is “their decision. Our decision, as a group of local churches, is how are we going to respond to their decisions.”

Again, this is the “false dichotomy/dilemma” argument. It is not either/or or “one over the other.” Pastors, parents, and Christians have a responsibility for both challenging others to make responsible decisions and ALSO to respond as Christ when they do not make good decisions! 

We are our brother’s keepers! We are to speak the truth and also love when the truth is ignored. The words of Jesus to the woman taken in adultery are, “Go and sin no more.” Sounds like he is speaking to her decision-making!

#4 — Story Arguments: The power of stories and letters is compelling! Andy knows well that a story can support any biblical or non-biblical position. He multiples personal accounts, letters, stories of missionaries, and a variety of situations — I.e., A well-known author who backed out and said, “I just can’t drag my family through this.” 

Bible-momma: Another is the story of a mother who is pelting her same-sexed-attracted child with biblical passages. It is a straw-man argument. It is a straw-man story because few would agree that such a mom’s approach is the way to deal with the issue. Be assured that Andy Stanley knows the power of anecdotal argument.  

In another example, Stanley refers to a pastor in Virginia, who in the sermon stopped and said, “I hate to say this . . . ” Stanley goes on to say, “Now whenever a pastor says I hate to say this, they can’t wait to say this.” That is not true, and worse! The story and implicit argument is ad hominem — attack the person.

The story of an attempted suicide is tragic but does not justify taking a position that is not supported in the Scriptures. As soon as you inject a child’s suicide into the equation, we all, as parents, are so moved that we may want to relent on what we know the Scriptures teach! Andy understands that!

#5 – It Wasn’t For You: Andy Stanley states that the conference was . . . 

“to equip parents to connect and to reconnect with their kids and to stay connected, so that they would have influence could keep their kids connected to their faith and keep their kids connected to Jesus. . . . .

Justin and Brian were invited — two married gay men . . . .Their stories and their journeys of growing up in church and maintaining their faith in Christ and their commitment to follow Christ all through their high school, and college and singles, and all the time they were married. . . . their story is so powerful for parents, especially of gay kids . . . . need to hear.

They (Brian & Justin) like you, like me, like compassionate Christians . . . . . These guys are bridge builders. . . They know that I don’t line up with everything with them theologically or the way they interpret certain passages of Scripture. But hey . . . The conference wasn’t for me. The conference wasn’t for most of you. I guarantee you that the conference wasn’t for any of the critics . . . .because the moment or the day that they discover that one of their children or that one of their grandchildren claim to be gay or transgender or questioning, they are going to scramble for people that who can help them get inside the hearts and minds of their children, That’s what good parents do. [1]”

√ First, the fact that the conference is for parents who have gay children does not mean that what is said to these parents may or may not be biblical, accurate, or true.

√ Second, the unmistakable implication (if not actually stated) of such statements is that you can be a Christian and maintain a gay lifestyle. Brian & Justin were and are Christians, and they are married. If they are powerful speakers, as Andy Stanley assures his audience, then they are even more hazardous to the spiritual, emotional, psychological, and sexual health of the audience!

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

While I am critical of Andy Stanley’s sermon, let me close by saying that what Andy Stanley has chosen to tackle is extremely difficult in very practical terms. There are some very difficult questions that are even more difficult to address without being misunderstood, no less charged with error and even malice, as has Andy Stanley.

As Andy Stanley stated, when a parent faces this issue in a very personal way, they are looking for answers from their church and their pastor. Being a pastor and holding to the Scriptures is at one of the highest tension points when dealing with a family facing issues of same-sex-attracted and/or homosexual children! I can tell stories that would break your heart and stress your mind for biblical answers. There needs to be a lot of Christian grace extended when ministry leaders like Andy Stanley seek to address such issues. Being less judgemental and kinder would not be a bad biblical recipe in such situations. 

 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

1 . The “No True Scotsman Argument”: The stories and appeals to parents who are struggling are found throughout. If you are a good parent, and good parents want to get into the hearts and minds of their children . . . . you would be at this conference and not a critic of it because that is what good parents do.

i.e. — They (parents) are parked in their car. They had to decide if they would join 150 other parents. Pull up in the parking lot, behind the building, and they sit, and they have to talk themselves into going in . . . .”What am I saying about myself as a parent? What am I saying about my children? 

2. Other analyses worth making?

√ Separating his church from himself: Andy repeatedly implies that it is his church, not him, that has taken this position and is promoting this position through a conference. 

I have worked with “the greatest staff in the world” / “I’m so proud of our church.” / “So proud of what you do.” / I’m so proud of our church, our volunteers, this incredible system engineers all those years ago that relationally pivoted . . . what a win for a church.”

“This is not new. This is who we are and always been and why I am so proud of you. . . . We are restoring relationships and saving lives.”

Let’s be clear; it was not the “church.” Andy’s church is not a congregational organized ministry. Andy Stanley has and continues to establish the direction of the Northpoint ministry.

√ Humor As Answers: Andy Stanley is an effective and powerful communicator! That is undeniable, and that is what makes his words worthy of analysis and criticism. 

Hold your boos and your applause (not booze).

Glad you are here to hear my response. Come next week, and there will be even more room.

I’m glad Heaven is a big place.

You may be saying, “I read those articles and/or critiques, and I’m sure it must be true.”

√ His “use” of Scripture:  As will those on both sides of the issue, some of Andy Stanley’s uses of Scripture are questionable

His reference to Nehemiah (We are not coming down to talk to you) — Andy stated he typically doesn’t respond to criticism . . . . but because of how widely it (the Mohler article) was circulated, he is going to respond.  

While there may be times when an enemy is seeking to stop the work of the Lord, and it may even be unwise to engage, the use of Nehemiah’s words does not justify refusing to address legitimate questions by brothers in Christ. Any has used too often refused to address real biblical issues!

 

Jesus drew circles; He drew circles so large and included so many people that included people like me and people like you . . . circles and that make the religious leaders nervous.

This has been previously addressed, but the calling up of the nervousness of the religious leaders adds a new unfair wrinkle to Stanley’s point, which is a comparison of his critics to the Pharisees.

 

For all of you who are weary and burdened, may you find rest for your soul . . . .That’s the invitation of me. That’s the invitation of the church.

Wowwww — What a use of Scripture! To make the claim that you are providing a place of biblical rest commensurate with the offer of Jesus is rather bold.

 

√ Separating Theology and Practice: “This isn’t a theology conference.” — as if you can separate theology from practice!

√ Statistics: I question some of the so-called statistical numbers cited. Not that there might be an article posted somewhere that suggests such a number or percentage, but because of the legitimacy of that article and statistic.  

√ Deflection: “What do we believe — What do we teach?” — When asking and answering the question of what Northpoint believes, Stanley diverts to three points they have historically taught. None of the points have any impact on same-sex relationships.

Honor God with your body

Don’t be mastered by anything

Don’t sexualize relationships outside of marriage.

√ The Uniqueness Of Same-Sex Attraction: One way to prevent a comparison between sinfulness, temptation, the Scriptural difficulty of providing an answer, et al. — is to claim that this is a unique area from all other areas of life. Andy makes that claim concerning same-sex attraction. He states that same-sex attraction is an issue like no other issue because it involves one’s identity.

 

 

How Is “Hyper-Calvinism” Being Redefined?!

· Leave a comment ·

It has become all too evident in the socio-political world that if we can change, stretch, or twist the definition of words, we can control the conversation. . . . . and this is also true when it comes to theological discussions!

“Hyper” means “to go beyond. ”  Outside of “hypersonic,” “hyper-anything” is generally not meant as a compliment.
“Hyper-Calvinism” means that one has gone beyond what John Calvin taught.

  • “You are more Calvin than John Calvin!”
  • “Not even John Calvin taught or believed that!” [1]
  • “You have taken what Calvin taught and are running it off the tracks.”

“Hyper-Calvinist” is recognized as an unattractive description, and the easiest way to avoid being called a “hyper-Calvinist” is to redefine the term.

In order to dodge the charge that one is a hyper-Calvinist, the term is redefined in a way to exempt those who are, in fact, on the extreme theological fringes.

AND what is even more advantageous is that by changing the definition, there is no need to change one’s theological-ideology.

√  Change the meaning so that the definition avoids theology and focuses on some supposed after-effects!
and
√  Change the meaning by setting up a “strawman,” a caricature that exempts most everyone . . . .

. . . . . and the problem is solved.

Here is how “hyper-Calvinism” is being defined today . . . .

“It is a teaching that downplays evangelism, church-planting, and going to the nations, on the basis that God is sovereign.  God is in control, and God has elected his people, so he’s going to save his people whether we speak the truth or not, whether we give our money to foreign missions or not. . . . Hoax-Calvinism . . . mimics Hyper-Calvinsim by never putting the boots on the ground, never befriending unbelievers, and only begrudgingly, at best, telling people about Jesus.” [2]

Sorry  — this is not “hyper-Calvinism,” but a strawman that seeks to distract from legitimate biblical issues.  IT is the “Hoax-Definition” of hyper-Calvinsim!

Such a definition moves the focus away from the genuine theological issues that surround Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, by repeating this well-known historical extreme parody. [3].

The author’s strawman is disingenuous and duplicitous!

What biblical ministry or local church does not . . . .

  • believe that God’s sovereignty also includes instrumentality?
  • understand that God’s Gospel program includes sharing the Word of God, praying for the souls of men, and living godly before them?
  • financially support foreign missions?
  • encourage telling others about Jesus — putting the boots on the ground?

What biblical ministry teaches or believes that . . . .

  • We should NEVER befriend unbelievers?
  • We should ONLY begrudgingly — and at best begrudgingly — talk to people about Jesus? [4]

These “strawman” definitions are merely an attempt to redefine hyper-Calvinism by calling up some fictional side-effects, without touching the real theology that underpins both Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism!

Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are about doctrine, not these “fabricated strawman” behaviors! [5]

Hyper-Calvinism primarily revolves around doctrinal issues of “sovereignty,” “limited atonement,” “the perseverance of the saints,” and the push to make grace, along with repentance and faith, all part of God’s gift. [6]

Hyper-Calvinism is NOT “hyper” because it spawns the behaviors cited in its strawman-camouflaged definition. [7]. It is “hyper” because of doctrinal issues that revolve around what is typically called — “The Five Points Of Calvinism.”  Those “Points” are all doctrinal, not behavioral strawmen.

Extreme or “hyper-Calvinsm” results when . . . .

  • Calvinistic-ideology takes precedence over all the other doctrines and truths of Scripture.
  • There is little willingness to balance out the doctrine of God’s sovereignty with human responsibility.
  • Clear biblical passages are marginalized because they “disturb one’s doctrinal consistency & peace.”
  • The demand to be intellectual consistency refuses to allow the doctrines of God’s sovereignty AND human responsibility to co-exist  — unresolved in our minds, but divinely resolved in the mind and plan of God.
  • One downgrades passages that call on believers to pray for, witness to, and live godly lives before those who are without Christ, rather than abandon, amend, and/or temper their doctrinal positions. [8]
  • There is an unwillingness to give room for divine “mystery” – for the fact that there are unknown and unrevealed truths that are not part of God’s revelation to men, that there are truths that are unknown to us and that would resolve our lack of understanding if known.
  • Preachers and pastors are unwilling to invite people to come to Christ because their “doctrine”  holds them back from calling on all men to trust Christ for the forgiveness of their sin.
  • Words no longer mean what words mean (whosoever will, God so loved the world, not willing that any should perish, all men) because it disrupts and disturbs one’s theological ideology.

Calvinism and “Hyper-Calvinism” are doctrinal issues, and there are real-life implications to those doctrinal beliefs! 

If it is biblical accurate that . . . .

  • even lost men, dead in their trespasses and sins, can see and understand that there is a Creator God (Romans 1)
  • the Good News / the Gospel is good news
  • that the Gospel is for all men
  • the “gift” is not grace or faith, but our salvation [9]
  • “whosoever will” can take of the water of life freely, [10]
  • the Lord calls on all men to repent
  • God is not willing for any to perish
  • that . . . . .
  • that . . . .

. . . . then this is not about two equally tenable positions, and the souls of men and women, adults and children, are at stake. 

And that has real-life eternal repercussions! [11]

Theological-ideology matters!

1 – Interestingly, John Calvin did not teach that faith is a gift!
“Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” — John Calvin

2 – Humble Calvinism, by Medders, pg 120

3 –  “At a meeting of Baptist leaders in the late 1700s, a newly ordained minister stood to argue for the value of overseas missions. He was abruptly interrupted by an older minister who said, ‘Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without consulting you or me.'”

As the author notes, “such an attitude is inconceivable today,” and it is!

Do not let such a strawman distract from the real theological issues that surround both Calvinism and “hyper-Calvinism.”  There are legitimate and relevant theological issues that surround both, and the proof is found in the many articles that attempt to argue that Calvinism does not dampen evangelistic zeal!

4 –  Using the word “never” and “only begrudgingly” reveals the true nature of this strawman!

Sadly, “Hoax-Calvinism” is not the strawman that explains the excesses that pervade the theological world today.  “Hoax-Calvinism” is a distraction!  “Calvinism,” “Extreme Calvinism,” and “Hyper-Calvinism” are theological movements that deserve serious conversation and examination.

5 – Obviously, one could find a church or ministry that believes and/or practices such absurd positions, but that hardly makes such a strawman anything less than disingenuous!

6 – One could easily include “God’s granting of repentance,” which is also taken out of its context.  The passage is focused on those who have stubbornly, and to their own spiritual demise, hardened their hearts.   Interestingly, Paul states that it will be by our patience and demeanor that we might perhaps soften their hearts to the truths of the Gospel.

7 – It is worth noting that both Calvinism and “hyper-Calvinism” have historically, presently, and repeatedly precipitated some very real practical repercussions.  They include a general lack of evangelistic zeal, the paucity of sermons that preach a clear and direct Gospel message, the unwillingness to give public invitations to call on Christ, a portrayal of “a God of judgment” more than a God of love, grace, and reconciliation, and a general coldness towards Gospel winsomeness and persuasion.

I taught at Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, Pa.  I was moving from Tennessee Temple to BBC in the late 70s.  During my 2-3 hour interview at BBC, I was asked if I had any questions or reservations about joining the faculty.  I indicated that I did. . . .

“I am struggling with the reputation that BBC has about its Calvinistic / hyper-Calvinistic position, and I have had some compare BBC to an evangelistic dustbowl.”

They responded that the reputation was due to “poor press” and that they had failed to make the case that they were evangelistic.  In fact, they stated that one of the reasons they were interested in having me join the faculty was that I taught at Tennesse Temple College and Seminary.  They wanted some men and women on their faculty who had taught at such evangelistically recognized schools.

Let me assure you that it was not just “poor press.”

I recall a chapel message by the President of BBC – Mark Jackson.  He exhorted the students about the historic tradition and position of Baptists as it relates to Gospel preaching and the giving of invitations.  After that chapel service, a faculty meeting, President Jackson was challenged by the Bible faculty and others about that chapel message and, even more specifically, about giving public invitations.  I was taken back that the President had to defend that position.

8 – How absurd are these comments if both are not true — #1 – That God is sovereignly working, and #2 – that men also have some level of “free will” that can be appealed to by preaching.

“Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.”

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

9 -The implications are significant if it is God who gives them “faith” to believe.  Making “faith” the gift is far different than making grace or salvation a gift.  As soon as you make the agent of salvation, “faith,” the gift of God, you now make God the sole person responsible for one’s salvation.  If He alone can give “faith,” and that “faith” is now a gift to whosoever He wills, you now have Him as the one responsible for whether a person does or does not believe and accept His Son as their Saviour!

10 – “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

11 – Unlike the “camouflaged strawman attempt” used to deflect from the real doctrinal issues, the real-life implications of hyper-Calvinism carry with them potentially damnable consequences. 

Fortunately, there is a lot of inconsistency in “theology” and “practicology” — between what Calvinists/hyper-Calvinist say they believe and what they actually practice and/or allow!  Those who need Christ still come to know the forgiveness of sin, even when men twist biblical truths to fit their ideology!

A pastor’s Calvinistic-ideology is often dismissed as unimportant because the church still engages in significant evangelistic endeavors.  
“Whatever our pastor believes . . . . what does it matter . . . . we support missions and engage in outreach ministries.”

At other times, a pastor’s Calvinistic-ideology is hidden from plain sight by weasel words and biblical statements that seem to imply that they are not on the extreme fringes of Calvinism.
“Our pastor talks about reaching the lost, salvation by grace through faith alone, and the need to share Christ.”

Unprincipled Calvinist: At Least Be Honest

· 4 Comments ·

If we are going to disagree and assume different positions as to what the Scriptures teach . . . . let’s at least be honest & trustworthy!  That should be true all the time, but surely we ought to be even more precise when it comes to the Gospel!

When someone makes a biblical argument and distorts the very words of a passage of Scripture, they have broken trustworthiness.  If a ministry and/or pastor can ignore the clear teaching of a passage of Scripture, for the sake of maintaining their position, they are no longer to be trusted in how they handle the Word.

“Well, what do you mean when you say ‘clear?'”
Your “clear” or my “clear?”

How about “It is well acknowledged that the passage cannot and does not teach that position!” [4]

There is no dispute as to what the Greek language and grammar allow when it comes to antecedents.  Unlike English grammar, the antecedent is not identified by its positioning, but by its gender.  After taking 6 years of Greek, I know that such is taught, well-acknowledged, and understood!

As is often stated, you are welcome to your opinion, but it is an uninformed opinion if you believe that case endings do not matter in the Greek language, and in many-to-most other languages.

Those who maintain that Ephesians 2:8 teaches that “faith is a gift God grants to some and not others” well understand that the Greek grammar rejects such a translation-interpretation.

The word “that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” cannot have “grace” or “faith” as its antecedent!

To not acknowledge that fact as a Bible teacher or pastor is disingenuous — at best!

.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

.

#1 – The word “‘that’ not of yourselves” is in the singular neuter case (“touto”)! [1]

No Greek speaker/writer would take a word that is in the neuter case and connect it with a word in the feminine or masculine case.

Nor would any Greek writer use the singular case to speak of something in the plural (“grace” and “faith”).  The writer would have stated . . . “and these not of yourselves.”

If, in Paul’s mind, he was thinking that faith is the gift of God, and if he wanted to convey that meaning, he could have easily used the feminine singular case “haute.” 

However, the Spirit of God, who was guiding Paul, chose not to use that word!  If the Spirit of God had used that word, then that meaning would have been clearly established.  The Spirit of God knows how to add clarity by using the established rules of Greek grammar!

“That” refers back to the whole — “For by grace are you saved, through faith.”  It is the whole salvation experience of rejecting the law and accepting the gift of grace that comes through exercising faith. [4]

Just as the whole salvation experience is “not of works” and refers back to the whole.  We come to Jesus without works, but only by exercising saving faith in His work for us.

Imposing English rules of grammar is not only improper but disingenuous.  In the English language, we determine antecedents by position.  What is the closest word, and that is the antecedent.  That is not how it works in Greek.  In Greek, word endings are vital!  In Greek, word order is often used to place emphasis.

At least be honest and state that . . . .

“The Greek text does not support my “interpretation” of “faith” being the “gift.”

Be honest and state that such a rendering is only your theologically motivated opinion, supported nowhere else in the Scriptures.

.

#2 – The Scriptures clearly teach that “faith” is not a work!

Faith is not a work, and that is clear because Paul contrasts faith (pistis) against works (ergon) (i.e. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 9-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:1-3; 4:14-5:2; 9:30-32).

Faith is what abandons all previous attempts to work one’s way to reconciliation with God.
Faith rejects the belief that one’s works can justify him/her.
Faith accepts Who Jesus is and the work He has accomplished on Calvary.

Faith is the means by which we accept the free gift of grace — “through faith.”  No one who accepts a gift would claim that accepting a gift is doing something for the gift.  Imagine being given a gift, and then saying that your acceptance of that gift was a work that earned you the gift.

Likewise, there is no reason for glory or boasting in accepting a free gift of salvation.  Paul states that there is only glory if righteousness comes by works of the law (Romans 4:1-5).  But Abraham believed (pisteuo) God and therefore had no reason to glory because (as Paul states!) it was not by works of the law, but by faith.

.

#3 – The gift is not grace.

The gift of God is our salvation, the forgiveness of sin — “by grace are you saved.”
The gift of salvation was made possible because of His grace, and it is ours by faith, by believing in Who Jesus is and what He has done for us on Calvary, by trusting that He, as God, has graciously provided full payment for our debt.

The salvation experience is the foundation of all that follows.

And “grace” is the reason anyone was or can be saved (“you have been saved”).
And grace comes through faith.
And grace is the contrast to works.

.

That is illustrated in John 11: 25-26, as Jesus addresses Martha. . . .

“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Martha responds (11:27) by saying . . .

“She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

In both the words of Jesus and Martha, there is not a hint that her faith was anything less than her own belief concerning Jesus, and that she had that belief before being asked the question.

Likewise, the question of Jesus clearly states that she could exercise or not exercise a personal belief as to who He was — “Do you believe this?”

AND her plain and clear response was . . . .

“Yes … I believe that thou art the Messiah and the Son of God that should come into the world.”

.

I understand that there are those who want to make faith the gift of God (which was not even John Calvin’s position!). [2][3] I also understand that there are those who can find no other passage which states that faith is a gift and this is their best attempt.  But as Charles Spurgeon stated . . . .

 My love of consistency with my own doctrinal view is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.  I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.

.

1- Word order is vital to the English language, but it is unlike Greek and most other languages.

Ephesians 2:8

τῇ    γὰρ    χάριτί      ἐστε      σεσῳσμένοι    διὰ       τῆς πίστεως·  καὶ    τοῦτο     οὐκ      ἐξ   ὑμῶν             θεοῦ      τὸ δῶρον·

the    for     by grace    are you        saved      through    the    faith      and      that        not       of     yourselves     of God   the  gift

τῇ    χάριτί   — chairs = grace
the grace — both words are singular and feminine

τῆς πίστεως — pistis = faith
the  faith — both words singular and feminine

τοῦτο – touto = that
that — singular neuter

. 

. . 

2 – “Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” — John Calvin

3 – Likewise . . . .

God so loved the world, and the world means the world!
He would have all men to be saved, and that means all men.
He is not willing that any should perish, and any means any.

.

4 – A T. Robertson . . . .

Note: There are only two other places where the Greek words — “kai toutos” = “and that” appear in the same nominative case, in both a singular and plural use.  In I Corinthians 6:6 “and that” refers back to the general subject of “goeth to law.”  In I Corinthians 6: 8 “and that” is in the plural and is plural because it refers back to both “do wrong” and “defraud.”  Paul makes reference to the general subject here, as he does in Ephesians 2:8 when speaking about salvation.  Paul also knew how to use the plural to refer to both doing wrong and defrauding.

5 – I have read the works of two commentary writers who make the claim that the case agreement is “not fatal” and “not irreconcilable”  However, two points in their commentary are noteworthy — #1 – They still maintain that the best understanding is that faith is NOT a gift, and #2 – They do not cite one other instance in the Greek language where such occurs which would make it not fatal!

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

καὶ ὁ θέλων
and the “willing”

The same word used in Matthew (and many other places). . . . .”Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”

For “calvinists” who claim Spurgeon as one of their own!

· 1 Comment ·

While Spurgeon is read and cited by many who believe him to be a “Calvinist” after their liking, most do not realize that he faced the same theological backdrop that exists today.

Outside of his speaking and writings around what was called the “Downgrade Controversy” (near the end of his life’s ministry) [1],  Spurgeon wrote and spoke extensively against the extreme Calvinistic movement that was infecting the theological culture.

Appropriately, Iain Murray chose to devote one of his multitudinous books to make known the historical legacy of Charles Spurgeon’s battle against the Calvinism of his day. [2]  Murray’s book is just as relevant today because the same battles continue to surface and resurface.  As Murray well understands,  . . . .

“To confine our view of the church to a few short and passing years (would be ) a serious mistake.
We need to see and remember the big picture.”

While Spurgeon repeatedly identifies himself as a “Calvinist,” his definition of that term is far more “Gospel general” and is primarily in distinction to those of the Arminian camp.

“And I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified,
unless you preach what nowadays is called Calvinism.…
It is a nickname to call it Calvinism;
Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

If you want to understand where Spurgeon stands on this issue of his day, read Murray’s book, or even some of the extensive reviews [4] that lay out Spurgeon’s case against extreme Calvinism.  Spurgeon’s argument against and utter rejection of the position that “faith is a gift of God” is devasting!

Here is a taste of Iain Murray’s book, and Spurgeon’s refutation of the extreme Calvinism that also marked his day . . . .

“All men,” say they; “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “All sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestion­ably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it.  I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, ‘Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.’  Had such been the inspirited language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping but as it happens to say ‘Who will have all men to be saved, his observations are more than a little out of place.  My love of consistency with my own doctrinal view is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.  I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.[3]

“The final conclusion has to be that when Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of men and women, when acceptance of doctrines seems to become more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system going to seed and it will invariably lose its attractive power.” [5]

1 – https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/blog-entries/what-was-the-downgrade-controversy-actually-all-about/

2. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism : the battle for gospel preaching by Iain Murray, pgs. 70-71

3 – Iain Murray — Pgs. 150-161

4 – A Three Part Review Of Murray’s Book, By Sharper Iron Links:

https://sharperiron.org/article/spurgeon-and-battle-for-gospel-preaching-part-1
https://sharperiron.org/article/spurgeon-and-battle-for-gospel-preaching-part-2
Link: https://sharperiron.org/article/spurgeon-and-battle-for-gospel-preaching-part-3

TGC Article Reviewing Murray’s Book Link

Stephen Unthank (MDiv, Capital Bible Seminary)  –“I don’t remember how I came across the book but I do remember the warming light of its content breaking into my immature thinking when I started reading it. I couldn’t put it down. And it seemed like after I finished each chapter I found myself repenting and praying, “Lord, help me to love those who are lost like Spurgeon did. No, help me love the lost like you do!” (Link) 

5 – Murray, pg. 120

6 – D.A. Carson Link

Imitation X 5

· Leave a comment ·

 

We live in an age of theological and ecclesiastic imitation or mimicry.
Let me point to some common examples . . .

.

√ Let’s Stand For The Reading Of God’s Word: Church upon church has now convinced God’s people of the need to honor God’s Word by standing during the reading (and even some preaching while reading) of the Bible. 

Apparently, the church has failed to honor the Scriptures throughout the past generations of congregants.  In fact, apparently, during many of the previous decades of the same pastor’s ministry, God’s Word has been dishonored by him. 

Having your Bible in hand, with the Scriptures on your lap, underlining, and/or taking notes is no longer a sufficient indicator that we honor and value God’s Word. 

Interestingly, while we “stand and honor the Scriptures,” many do not even carry a Bible with them to church but read it off of a screen.

.

√ Liturgical Statements:  They come in all forms, but the rote nature of such comments is obvious – “May the Lord add His blessing to the reading of the Word.”  “This is God’s Word.”  “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

There is nothing amiss with the words, but there is something wrong with the formulaic sound of such pietistic acclamations. 

It is much like — “We ask this in Jesus’ name” — at the end of prayers!  It is tacked on, repetitively, with the same tonal detachment from any real meaning or sincerity — shallow and vain repetition.

.

√ Small Groups: Seemingly overnight, churches are promoting the newly found significance, importance, and necessity of “Small Groups.”  It is elevated as the biblical pattern, and it is promoted as vital to the growth of God’s people and the effectiveness of the church.  

Small Groups are biblically validated by using such passages as Acts 2:46 — where house churches were the common practice of the early church.  Of course, there were small house churches during the earliest days of the church. However, these biblical examples are now prescriptive and not descriptive.  

“Small Groups” are not merely a different name for Sunday School and/or Adult Bible Study classes, but are based more on a group counseling model.  The focus is inward, and the members are encouraged to share their intimate struggles and questions publicly with other members of the church.

While the worth of small groups is now proclaimed, it is worth recalling that there was a time when small groups did not exist. In fact, some pastors failed to understand that during decades of their own ministries — at least until now!  Apparently, the biblical nature and importance of “small groups” was not understood for centuries, and only now that the local church grasps the importance of such intimate groups.  [1]

.

√ Pastoral Practices:  How many have tried to follow the actions and activities of Jim Cymbala and the Brooklyn Tabernacle Church? 

That approach to ministry has been repeatedly employed by imitating other successful ministries, conference speakers, bloggers, and authors.

A ministry leader writes a book about what he/she is doing, his “deeper life,” a sought-after spiritual discipline, and/or how successful this-or-that has been in ministry, and pastors are ready to imitate and implement!  They are going to bring the thinking and/or activities into the life of their church because they believe in them and them!

The question being asked is,  “So how did you do it?  How have you been able to . . .? What is the “Secrets Sauce?” 

Some believe that what worked for another in this-or-that location, in his/her spiritual walk, at this time in the life of his/her ministry, with that group of people, is what the Lord has for them!  

.

√ “Theological Echoes:”  Someone comes out with a new interpretation, elucidation, or explanation of a passage of Scripture, and you begin to hear it repeated over and over!  Some love the novel, and others may believe it gives them some kind of intellectual credibility!

Someone preaches, teaches, or publishes a crazy theological position, and it is repeated by other ministry leaders and pastors years later —  (check out these two recent ones within reformed circles [2]).   

There is much more than can be said on this kind of imitation. . . . . but that’s for another day!

.

.

1 – We called this “personal discipleship,” and it was done “one-to-one” because there were sensitive areas and discussions that were between a pastor (or mature & wise church leader) and a new believer.  There are qualifications for a deacon, but rarely for a small group Bible teacher.

2 – Two Examples:  How does John Piper link to an insane post by Curtis Chang?  Worse yet, there is no pushback when Piper writes this article biblically defending accepting vaccinations!

Or, in recent days, an even crazier book by Josh Butler has been published by TGC, with endorsements by well-known reformed teachers, leaders, and preachers!  How does this escape notice from the publishers and those who wrote a public endorsement of it?

Tom Buck/SBC: “I was just shown that John Piper linked to this video in the article he wrote to encourage people to get the Covid vaccine. The linked video teaches the Covid vaccine is like Jesus’ work of redemption. It even redeems abortion. “The vaccine may have a distant origin story in abortion” but it serves as a metaphor of Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross. “What began in death could be reworked into life.”
desiringgod.org/articles/a-rea
Link From Piper’s article:  “You have thought hard about the implications of fetal cell lines in the production and testing of the vaccines.”

The Gospel Coalition: Josh Butler’s New Book: 
https://churchleaders.com/news/446148-the-gospel-coalition-under-fire-comparing-christs-love-sexual-encounter.html

 

Ideology Matters!

· 2 Comments ·

In response to the Biden administration appointments of judges to U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky stated . . . .

“We all know that there are many cases where the ideology of the judges makes all the difference . . . . As a lawyer, the first thing I want to know, as soon as I can find out, is who is [on] my panel.”

Chemerinsky understands that the law is not always what you think the law is, but laws are interpreted through the ideological glasses of the judge adjudicating the matter.  Just like in politics, facts do not dictate actions when an ideology prevails.  “Ideologies” is why your mind spins when trying to figure out the thinking that explains decisions and actions.  Sometimes you say, “That sounds (or is) crazy!”  It is because the decision or action is ideologically driven.  It doesn’t compute because the ideology dictates the response, not the “real world.”  “Trust the science” goes by the wayside if an ideology is the guiding rule.

That is also what happens theologically!  There are strong theological ideologies that color how one reads the Scriptures.  Those theological ideologies also color what is preached and not preached, taught and not taught, from the “pulpit,” among the staff, and in discipleship.

When ministries are driven ideologically, they emphasize verses and passages that support their ideology.  They fail to provide the counterbalance that other verses and passages provide, losing the Scriptural balance.

I have often said that when we read about “the beauty of the Lord” (Psalm 27; 90), “beauty” includes the idea that everything is in proper proportion.  All of us probably have something about our appearance that we wish were different.  Cosmetologists and plastic surgeons make a living off of that fact.  Maybe it is a strong chin, a large nose, big ears, skinny or heavy legs, deep-set eyes, a big mouth, wild eyebrows, long legs, short fingers, or a balding head.  A beautiful person has everything in proper proportion!

Theological ideologues lose that proportionality.  A “single” truth seems to override all other truths.  Most everything they read in the Scriptures somehow ends up revolving around that truth!  When that happens, things can get ugly!

Ideologues are prone to bypass the fact that some truths are enveloped in mystery — the inability to reconcile the fact that two truths are equally presented and cannot be harmonized except in the mind of God.  We just won’t be able to put them together without some uneasiness.

Ideology drives one into theological ditches.  The ditches may be “left” or “right,” but they are ditches.

After a period of commitment to an ideology, the ditch begins looking like the main road!

The idealogues limit their consideration of other “maps.” Their ideology is bolstered by other “theological cartographers” who support their theological-ideology.   Their study desk is replete with old and new commentaries written by those of the same ideological persuasion.  Reading a commentary or religious book that significantly challenges their ideology “is a waste of time, no less money.”

The result is a ministry or church that learns to ride the ditch — all with his map in their hands!

No matter what the realities — few saved, fewer baptized, little-to-no outreach, a slowly dwindling overall attendance, financial concerns, et al. —  the ditch is now believed to be the main road by all who are still aboard.

“Ditch managing” is the solution, as one seeks to convince other map holders that we are not where we obviously are!

Regardless of the realities that coincide with “ditch riding,” the solution is to purposefully select messages to explain away the realities that naturally come with “riding in the ditch” — “We are standing on what the Bible teaches no matter what the impact on our church or church ministries!”

Yes, theological-ideologues are a clear and present danger in law, politics, and ministry!

Typically, just as in judicial appointments and politics, someone new will come along and assume the leadership after enough damage is done.

How does it all end? Most ministries survive such theological-ideologues.  After a period of time of slow erosion, a new ministry leader will assume leadership, and he will try to re-map God’s people out of the ditch that they have come to believe was the road.

Let’s Kill Some Of These Disingenuous Arguments!

· 2 Comments ·

As a past pastor and college professor, let’s call out some of the terrible arguments that “explain” why church services are canceled this coming Sunday. 

#1 – “Christmas is not biblical.” — You are right! Christmas” is the artificial day of celebration, not the Lord’s Day.  If you would like to cancel Christmas as a day of celebration, go at it.  It has no biblical basis.  The Lord’s Day has biblical, historical, and experiential support!  Churches aren’t canceling Christmas celebrations, but the established service(s) of God’s people on the Lord’s Day.

#2 – “Few will attend.” — Decisions on whether one should have a service on the Lord’s Day are not based on whether all or some of God’s people attend or don’t attend.  Those who would like to worship and praise God during “Sunday School,” Sunday Morning, Sunday Evening, Mid-week, et al . . . .  should have that opportunity provided to them by their pastor.  In fact, the pastor should want to provide such opportunities for those who are the most “committed.” 

#3 – “Only doing it one day this year.” — Christmas is a recognized religious “holyday” celebrating the incarnation!  Remarkedly, it is the most likely day that people who are not church-going people – go. (along with Easter/Thanksgiving / Mother’s Day).  Many non-church people may not attend on Christmas Sunday evening, nor do they throughout the year!  Nevertheless, over the years, we have had hundreds attend our Christmas Sunday evening drama and because it was on Christmas Sunday. Pointing out that the culture is removing Christ from Christmas while removing Him from your regular Sunday services, is just duplicitous!  And then we wonder why fewer attend church or trust their pastor’s pulpit ministry.

#4 – “We are replacing/moving it. — “Saying that you “replaced the Sunday evening service with a Saturday candlelight service, fellowship time, singspiration, etc. is an abuse of words at best and deceptive at worse.  Call it what it is!  You didn’t “replace” or “move” anything!  You canceled the Sunday evening service because it fell on Christmas!  You are allowed to have both and/or more than one seasonal service, without canceling another.  Such statements are underhanded!

#5 – “Romans 14” — Romans 14 isn’t about having or not having the regularly scheduled services on the Lord’s Day when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday. —  talk about expository preaching and properly exegeting what the Scriptures teach!  No more of this talk about what others believe and teach when we ourselves can make the Scriptures say what we want them to say to justify a bad decision!

#6 – “It is legalism to judge.” — It is not “legalism” to follow a biblical, historical, and experiential practice, such as Sunday worship, any more than it is legalism to expect God’s people to read their Bibles, pray, praise Him in song, witness, etc.  There is no reason to stop or pause in doing any of these godly disciplines.  None of them make you godly, but godly people follow such practices.  Else, it is legalistic to expect people to come to church on Superbowl Sunday (or an anniversary, a birthday. . . .)  if God’s people would rather watch football than attend church!  — “Let’s not be legalistic” — since choosing football over church is a legitimate and proper option.

#7 – “We don’t have an evening service.” — Some churches no longer have Sunday evening services.  These churches and pastors have nothing to say about the matter!   They have already put into practice what will be happening around America in a few days.   They have already decided that the Lord’s Day is also their day to do whatever!  While they protest about the moral decline of our culture, they have been and continue to be part of the problem, not the solution!  

#8 – “What does it matter!” — There are people, who know not Christ, who would be and are willing to celebrate Christmas — for good or for bad, for the right reasons or the wrong reasons — if the church would provide some opportunities.  With many churches, it used to be a cantata, “The Living Christmas Tree, a Christmas instrumental concert, a Christmas drama, etc.  Those people are more and more left to the seasonal secular events and shows available across American culture.

#9 – “It was not my decision.” — I truly doubt that the decision regarding Sunday services is made by the deacons, trustees, elder board, or God’s people.  Yes, that decision comes from the lead pastor!  He decided it!  He is the one who should be held responsible — and will be!  Unfortunately, the other church leaders and the flock lack the will, position, or strength to say — “Not in our church.  That is not who we are!”

#10 – “Other pastors around us are doing it also.” — Too many”Shepherds” are no different than the sheep (and maybe worse)! They want the time off, just like many of the leaders and/or God’s people.  That is the reality!  They have their plans and/or don’t want to minister to the smaller group that may attend!  It reflects the declining love of ministry, commitment, and work ethic of many pastors in our present-day pulpits.

^

The arguments being made about canceling Sunday services are just another reagent, a revealer of where the shepherds of the flock are in their ministries! Most of the “explanations” (at best) and pastoral hypocrisy (at worse) communicate the shallow and superficial love of their calling and of the Lord’s ministry.  While many of God’s people may well remain quiet, they understand what their pastor is saying – verbally and non-verbally — about our Lord, the local church, corporate worship, commitment, and about himself!

 

 

The #1 Indicator Of The Lord’s Soon Return May Be . . .

· 2 Comments ·

While many might point to a variety of signs for the soon return of the Lord, I might select one that many might pass over! 

After reading and listening to the articles, pastoral announcements, tweets, and church posts about what is about to happen in just a few days, I have come to the position that the #1 indicator of the soon return of our Lord is not wars, violence, lawlessness, drought, famine, pestilence, or even the dramatic cultural shift in society. 

Dr. David Jemiah highlighted five signs and never mentioned this one!  It is easy to miss because we are not marked by self-awareness!  We are much better at talking about the lost world around us! 

The #1 sign may not be anything we see taking place in the physical, socio-political, or secular world.  It may be far more in line with what the Lord Himself states at the end of his “parable of the unjust judge” . . . . 

Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The #1 sign may be found in and around the actions and practices of the local church!

The #1 sign may be seen in the lack of commitment and conviction of local church pastors who are willing to set aside the established regular services on the Lord’s Day because Christmas falls on a Sunday!  When the shepherds propose and/or agree to such a decision, and then offer some kind of explanatory justification for such a move, the church has lost its compass!  The lack of authenticity continues to be apparent to the world — We are really no different than them!  It’s about us! [1]

Pastors/church leaders teach God’s people to use “explanatory justifications” to cover the lack of commitment and love.  A longer Sunday morning worship service, a Friday & Saturday night Christmas drama, or a Christmas Eve candlelight service are used as an allowable replacement — as if you can’t do both, and as if you should not make the priority preserving the regular worship services on the Lord’s Day — to make it clear that the Lord alone is worthy — on His day, celebrating His incarnation!

The Gospel Coalition has even provided cover for the many churches that TALK ABOUT glorifying the Lord supremely.  The article even uses Scripture to justify such a decision (Romans 14).   

The passage is used to deflect criticism away from a pastor’s (or leadership’s) decision to cancel worship on the Lord’s Day.  The passage is about individual weaker fellow believers. The passage is not about local church services on the Lord’s Day.  It is about eating certain meats, observing holy days, and believing that every day is a day to honor the Lord.  It even includes the words “judge,” which suggests that any criticism is verboten!  How advantageous.

Some Christians may want to mark this passage for future use!  It may prove useful for excusing attendance on Sunday evenings, midweek services, Sunday school, small groups, or other special services.  It may even be useful for Superbowl Sunday!

Can you imagine an O.T. saint, a N.T. believer, or any of the apostles using these words to support the belief that the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day is not a day set aside for Christian worship?  Paul never intended for this passage to be used to justify canceling the regular and weekly worship and teaching services because the leadership/pastors/or people want to make it a time for themselves!

Maybe the #1 sign of the Lord’s return is what is happening in and among the leadership (or lack thereof) of the church when “shepherds” begin talking and acting like sheep! [3]

Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

1. There would be a good number of churches that have no evening service, or even midweek services, as part of their regular practice.  They are not changing their regular services.  They have not made a purposeful decision to cancel anything to accommodate or conform to the patterns of this world.

Now Santa and the church is a different story — but for another time!

2. It is astonishing how some pastors can decry what is happening in our culture and then cancel any service on Christmas day because it falls on a Sunday!  They are part of the problem, surely not part of the solution!

As someone remarked — There is no room in the inn for Jesus Sunday evening — on this December 25, 2022!

3. From the “TGC” article — “the pastors at our church ultimately decided to refuse his plea.” — a shameless article!